|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
If a gay couple adopt a child, there is no medical help involved.
What I am waiting for is to see if God blesses the act of buggery with a pregenancy? I believe He blesses sex between man and woman with such an event occassionally.
quote:
There was no agenda, and to be honest naive or not I don't think David expected the furore that has followed.
One does not need to be a prophet like Elijah to know the shit would hit the fan these two chaps of priesthood by their actions. As grown men they would have known what was going to happen but still went a head.
[ 16. June 2008, 11:04: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EJCardiff
Shipmate
# 12289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
If a gay couple adopt a child, there is no medical help involved.
What I am waiting for is to see if God blesses the act of buggery with a pregenancy? I believe He blesses sex between man and woman with such an event occassionally.
And exactly what is that meant to mean? Its statements such as that which ignite situations. Its the kind of thing one expects Akinola to say. Shameful.
[code]
[ 17. June 2008, 01:35: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Evangelium secundum Ioannem
Posts: 103 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I wonder what the response would be if a gay clergy couple's adopted (or indeed biological - with a non-involved donor or surrogate) child were baptised.
Not so long ago many clergy were refusing to baptise a child whose parents weren't married.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
well, as an "across the ponder" I don't know the intricacies of CoE, but coming a few weeks before the Lambeth the ceremony can not help but make a statement.
But this is a sampling error surely.
The question is not 'why was this single-sex blessing held just before the Lambeth Conference?' but 'why was this single-sex blessing turned into a media frenzy when the CofE performs hundreds every year which are not'?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
The OP on this thread suggested that it might well end up in Dead Horses, and I have been watching its progress with a keen hostly eye. As long as the discussion has been focused on the media attention surrounding these nuptials, the purpose of that attention and its likely consequences, I think the discussion remains (marginally) appropriate for Purgatory.
However, any indication that discussion is turning to the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage per se, will be a clear indication that this thread would be more appropriately housed on the Dead Horses board. Some recent posts, particularly one by the coiled spring, are definitely tending in that direction. Hosts will continue to watch this thread with avid interest to see which direction it takes.
If those participating wish this discussion to remain in Purgatory, please avoid discussion of whether gay marriages (clergy or otherwise) are blessed by God, and return the conversation to the implications of this particular wedding.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
well, as an "across the ponder" I don't know the intricacies of CoE, but coming a few weeks before the Lambeth the ceremony can not help but make a statement.
But this is a sampling error surely.
The question is not 'why was this single-sex blessing held just before the Lambeth Conference?' but 'why was this single-sex blessing turned into a media frenzy when the CofE performs hundreds every year which are not'?
Hmm, maybe you've got me dj!! From what I have read maybe it is an outlier--perhaps because of the fact that clergy were involved, and the service held in a well-known church, and the service was attended by several hundred people, and .....yes, Lambeth is only a few weeks away.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I join others in finding Dr. Dudley's protestations that this wasn't a wedding nor intended to be provocative just a bit specious.
There's much talk of what a train wreck this matter is. But it is also an opportunity for ++Rowan. Should he appear to come down hard against this, he would strengthen his standing with conservatives. And he could use that about now.
So far, he's said nothing. Methinks he better find his tongue and soon.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
There was no agenda, and to be honest naive or not I don't think David expected the furore that has followed.
That it could be suggested that two people committing to each other before God for life could be an "ill considered stirring" makes me sad.
Oh purleez!
On the whole I have nothing much against this service and I wish the couple a lifetime of blessings and happiness.
BUT....
Not even the most naive person who is very very naive could fail to see that the timing of this event was bound to create enormous waves in the Anglican Communion. To claim that no-one involved had any inkling of what might follow makes the couple and the priest incredibly stupid to the point of imbecility.
Just stop for a moment and think. The Lambeth Conference is just a few weeks away (and its date has been pretty much public knowledge for the past decade!); at the said Conference, the issue of homosexuality is going to high up on the agenda. Now it doesn't take too many brain cells to realise that a blessing/wedding in London right about now is going to become huge HUGE news.
As I say, I don't have problems with the idea of the couple getting hitched. But I think that they have been either absurdly naive or dangerously reckless to do it right now. To be honest, they have played right into the hands of Akinola, Jensen et al. What a gift for GAFCON! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I sometimes think that the liberal, gay-friendly part of the Anglican Communion is made up of closet masochists who enjoy being whipped from pillar to post by ConEvos. There is no other explanation for the way that they continue to behave exactly as the ConEvos would have wanted them to.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
But as I said before - what about all of the SSBs that don't fall within a couple of months of the Lambeth Conference? Perhaps they chose the date for their blessing because, oh, I don't know, they just thought the weather would be nice? Or because it was when both of their families could make it? Or any of the other reasons people use to 'pick a date'. You talk about the Lambeth Conference as though it was a prominent entry in every Anglican diary! I certainly couldn't tell you when it will be.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mogwai
Shipmate
# 13555
|
Posted
I'd not realised that gay clegy who enter into civil partnerships are made to pledge celibacy. So a happy gay clergy couple will become partners to affirm their union and stop cleeping together... Hmm.
200 bishops to break away from lambeth.
--------------------
:love:
Posts: 704 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Blah, Blah, Blah..............
Bishops, Authority, Church, Religion, Man made rules, Diocese, Anglicanism,
Blah, Blah, Blah............Are the cows home yet?
Has anybody read their Bible recently and checked out God's revealed purpose for family and marraige? I'm not talking about using semantics on a verse here and there, I'm talking about the big picture.
I wondered how long it would take before the Happy Clappy contingent raised their "no traditions of men" ploy.
[ 16. June 2008, 17:31: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
This ceremony was timed to be held held prior to the Lambeth Conference before a large congregation. It could have been held a few weeks later later.
Since the event the minister performing the ceremony has spoken widely to the press, including international press agencies.
All involved in the staging of this event would know that such a service, held in a prominent London church, before a large congregation and involving two clergy would attract wide media and press interest.
Hence, I maintain it was deliberately provocative.
It has been argued by the officiant that it was not a wedding, and it was not. However, the fact that the officiant used the traditional wedding service as the basis for the service and altered as little as could be of it shows that it was approached with 'wedding' in mind, - confetti etc were also used.
It could have been done quite differently - for example an introduction could have stated that a civil partnership had happened and that the couple wished to pray with family and friends in a church. A liturgy quite different from a wedding service could have been imaginatively prepared.
I am sure that there are such events as this ocurring quietly and discretely around the country. This event was, however, designed differently and with different intentions.
This much publicised event damages the cause of those who favour change, and cannot have helped Archbishop Rowan Williams or the Bishop of London, or indeed the Church of England, as they approach the Lambeth Conference.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
This much publicised event damages the cause of those who favour change, and cannot have helped Archbishop Rowan Williams or the Bishop of London, or indeed the Church of England, as they approach the Lambeth Conference.
But does it really damage the cause of those favouring change? ISTM that it is likely to convince any wavering deeply-conservative bishops to stay away from England and the Lambeth conference. Which means that there will be a higher proportion of non-conservative bishops in all of the discussions.
Oh deary me, how very unfortunate.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Audrey Ely,
All the "Wedding Blessings", for people who had previously had a legal wedding, that I've known about at our church were as almost identical to the wedding service - it was meant to let them feel the reality of God's blessing, just as God would bless people doing the marriage the first time etc.
I don't think it's at all necessary to fiddle the words a bit, add in non-accepting info, because that puts down the importance abd celebration of the partnership.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I'm not worried about the Lambeth Conference, which is a bit of an irrelevant talking shop really.
I'm worried about the possible damage to the diocesan mission if we get into sabre-rattling battles over Common Fund and dead horses.
First bids for Common Fund giving in 2009 from the PCCs are due in with the London Diocesan Fund office by this 30th June.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
antSJD
Shipmate
# 13598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I'm not worried about the Lambeth Conference, which is a bit of an irrelevant talking shop really.
I for one am worried about the Lambeth Conference and what will become of all this. The Anglican Communon is far from stable as it is. It will be sad if the Communion breaks up, but is there the question of this changing the look of the CofE? 500 Anglo-Catholic priests are on about leaving if you believe the papers. A schism in the CofE??
--------------------
I yearn to understand some measure of your truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.
Posts: 440 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by antSJD:
I for one am worried about the Lambeth Conference and what will become of all this. The Anglican Communon is far from stable as it is. It will be sad if the Communion breaks up, but is there the question of this changing the look of the CofE? 500 Anglo-Catholic priests are on about leaving if you believe the papers. A schism in the CofE??
But that speculative figure of 500 priests is said to relate to those opposed to women Bishops, and has nothing to do with the Big Wedding Incident.
Also (but I'm ready to be corrected), I don't think that it's possible to have a schism in a church established by law, like the CofE. It is, however, quite possible for some people to go away and start a new church...
I wonder if the quickest resolution to this mess (in England, at least) would be for everyone who has had a civil partnership blessed in a CofE church to come forward now. If it has been as many as people seem to suggest, the numbers would show people that the debate has already moved on.
I agree, though, that any fracturing of communion would be sad and a move in the wrong direction. But I am struggling to understand what the substantive loss might be, given the last 10 years of tension and dissension.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
As I understand it the Bishops of the Church of England have asked clergy not to perform such services. These clergy have publically and with much publicity, disobeyed their bishop(s). They may have done this after carefully following their consciences. It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I agree, though, that any fracturing of communion would be sad and a move in the wrong direction. But I am struggling to understand what the substantive loss might be, given the last 10 years of tension and dissension.
Well, the loss of many evangelical and Anglo-Catholics would be a very serious loss, not just to the CofE, but to Anglicanism, seeing that many will go to non-Anglican jurisdictions.
But I guess to liberals like yourself, that's not *substantive*.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Blah, Blah, Blah..............
Bishops, Authority, Church, Religion, Man made rules, Diocese, Anglicanism,
Blah, Blah, Blah............Are the cows home yet?
Has anybody read their Bible recently and checked out God's revealed purpose for family and marraige? I'm not talking about using semantics on a verse here and there, I'm talking about the big picture.
I wondered how long it would take before the Happy Clappy contingent raised their "no traditions of men" ploy.
I'm always happy to have Happy Clappies unwittingly appeal to the natural law to make their point about marriage, something which they usually take to be man-made tosh. Now, if they start taking, "till death do us part" seriously, we'll really be getting somewhere, since I thought that was part of God's plan for marriage as well.
There's really some sick co-dependency going on here. I trust these priests got their frisson from outraging the sensibilities of traditional mores, while the raging anti-gays get their daily dose of sexual titilation from portly sodomites in morning coats.
[ 16. June 2008, 21:35: Message edited by: Frito Bandito ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
antSJD
Shipmate
# 13598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
As I understand it the Bishops of the Church of England have asked clergy not to perform such services. These clergy have publically and with much publicity, disobeyed their bishop(s). They may have done this after carefully following their consciences. It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
This is my concern over the issue. That unity has been put into jeopardy because someone won't respect the authority of his Bishop. In my opinion the ceremony had provocative intentions as well as, I suspect, the genuine intentions of the participants. I, like many others, wish them well in their life together, but I think the fact that the Anglican Communion has been given another blow is a sad sad thing.
One catholic and apostolic church...its bad enough the way it is at the moment.
--------------------
I yearn to understand some measure of your truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.
Posts: 440 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
But other issues of authority, failures to respect unity and disobedience to rules never create this kind of fuss. Issues in the CofE such as withholding of diocesan contributions, irregular ordinations, competitive church plants, for example - all of these have a more immediate and substantive impact on the church, at a local or broader scale, and don't attract scorn from an international cadre of bishops.
In contrast, the simple fact about this blessing/wedding/dedication (delete according to taste) is that it does not have any material effect on people who do not like this sort of thing. One has to choose to be upset about it.
If I was to choose to be upset about something some of my fellow Anglicans do, it would be such failings as environmental thoughtlessness, greed, infedelity, gossip or any number of other things (small or large) that Actually Hurt Other People. And we do many things like this.
How people choose to regularize their relationships seems irrelevant in comparison, and the angry responses are more of a scandal than the event itself. But the emotions raised will have effects, of course...
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Rather frivolous in my opinion. Like so many 'making a statement' actions by the empowered it rings rather hollow to me. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Do what the majority can freely do, and you risk losing your job = frivolous & empowered? Really?
Isn't it a terrible nuisance. How embarassing people wanting to be equal can be. Go sit at the back of the bus, M'am. Don't make a fuss.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Ah the 'red herring' 'defence'. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Unfortunately, there are what are known as serious implications. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Christians, from earliest times, have not necessarily blithely followed fashion. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
A very wise, and by the way, extremely tolerant journalist here in Queensland - Alison Coates, banned from writing in the local Anglican paper 'Focus' by Herr Holingworth when he was Archfuhrer, wrote, in the Courier-Mail about a year ago, a very lucid article explaining why the word 'marriage' would have a negative effect on people who might otherwise favour gay unions, even church blessing of same.
Less emotional foaming at the mouth by the likes of you might help the cause you support.
[ 16. June 2008, 21:51: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I agree, though, that any fracturing of communion would be sad and a move in the wrong direction. But I am struggling to understand what the substantive loss might be, given the last 10 years of tension and dissension.
Well, the loss of many evangelical and Anglo-Catholics would be a very serious loss, not just to the CofE, but to Anglicanism, seeing that many will go to non-Anglican jurisdictions.
But I guess to liberals like yourself, that's not *substantive*.
The personalisation of that remark was simplistic and unnecessary.
But let me be more helpfully explicit - I was intending to suggest that the fractures would occur on the already established provincial fault lines, meaning that in practice each province would go on just the same as before.
But assuming I'm wrong and since you ask, no I don't think that the Anglican tradition is superior to other branches of the church catholic - and vice versa. So if someone felt more comfortable in another tradition it would not be a 'substantive loss'. For me it's ultimately about a person's relationship with Christ, not this-or-that ecclesiology.
So if, in comparison, reactions to such events as the St Barts ceremony turned people away from Christ, then that would indeed be a substantive loss. It would be a disaster.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
So if, in comparison, reactions to such events as the St Barts ceremony turned people away from Christ, then that would indeed be a substantive loss. It would be a disaster.
Are people within the church never to be allowed to react strongly to things other Christians do? Or only on this issue? Should we kowtow to what those outside the church want us to be?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Less emotional foaming at the mouth by the likes of you might help the cause you support.
If you didn't care for my reaction to your argument you'll find some others in the thread that took similar exception to it, in fuller forms of expression.
The tone of your response, however, does not encourage me to entertain further discussion.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
So if, in comparison, reactions to such events as the St Barts ceremony turned people away from Christ, then that would indeed be a substantive loss. It would be a disaster.
Are people within the church never to be allowed to react strongly to things other Christians do? Or only on this issue? Should we kowtow to what those outside the church want us to be?
Well, that is a good point, to which I do not have a final answer, if I'm honest. I can only point to the remarks I made earlier about caring more about the things that hurt other people, which I think should be a part of our common mission. But you are right, it's difficult to talk in absolutes about this - and I, like everyone else, find it difficult to be nuanced when reacting to a message in front of me...
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
The Guardian newspaper gives more information about the resignation of one of the clergy involved in this event. The report is reproduced here.
The officiant comments, in the Guardian:
quote:
Nor is it the first time there have been prayers, hymns or readings following a civil partnership.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Not even the most naive person who is very very naive could fail to see that the timing of this event was bound to create enormous waves in the Anglican Communion. To claim that no-one involved had any inkling of what might follow makes the couple and the priest incredibly stupid to the point of imbecility.
Were there other such events held in other C of E churches in recent weeks? I imagine so.
Those that want to single this event out for special attention will do so, but the consequences are largely on the heads of those that do. I see nothing that suggests the couple in question invited the attention. If I were getting hitched, and did not think folks would go out of their way to call attention to my ceremony, I don't think I'd care when it occurred relative to Lambeth. If I managed to find a great church and a reception hall on a lovely weekend in June, I wouldn't give the timing a passing thought. Especially if I were attempting to arrange a ceremony to be attended by family coming from essentially the other end of the earth.
The media doth protest too much.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
Having the order of service available on the internet suggests an intention was to publicise.
Except the link provided would seem to suggest that the leak was not from the couple or clergy. The document appears faded and water-damaged - perhaps it was even fished out of the rubbish by an unscrupulous journalist.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Were there other such events held in other C of E churches in recent weeks? I imagine so.
Those that want to single this event out for special attention will do so, but the consequences are largely on the heads of those that do.
If I managed to find a great church and a reception hall on a lovely weekend in June, I wouldn't give the timing a passing thought. Especially if I were attempting to arrange a ceremony to be attended by family coming from essentially the other end of the earth.
It is not just the blessing of a civil partnership by a vicar that is controversial. I agree there are probably a few every month across the Church of England.
It is unusual that the couple were both Anglican priests, and one of them was not merely licensed by our Bishop, but an incumbent in one of his churches, chaplain to one of our great hospitals and priest vicar at one of our royal churches. That is what makes this newsworthy. This is England, so anything involving sex, the NHS and/or a member of the royal family is going to hit the press, however tenuous the link is!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
If I were getting hitched, and did not think folks would go out of their way to call attention to my ceremony, I don't think I'd care when it occurred relative to Lambeth. If I managed to find a great church and a reception hall on a lovely weekend in June, I wouldn't give the timing a passing thought.
Maybe this is a pond difference thing but we are talking about Priests here. This is an extremely painful issue that divides the church of their ordination so there is no way that it 'just happened to be a lovely weekend in June'.
Planning a wedding is always a very sensitive and political affair and therefore factors of timing etc. are usual paramount. You would not just miss something like this.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
As I understand it the Bishops of the Church of England have asked clergy not to perform such services. These clergy have publically and with much publicity, disobeyed their bishop(s). They may have done this after carefully following their consciences. It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
But, but, but...
Surely you must be aware that it is common knowledge that same-sex blessings are performed all the time in several dioceses of the CHurch of Engalnd, and have been for several years. Perhaps as many as a third of the CofE's diocese are involved. And so far as I know, not a single one of the priests presidng at these rites has ever been repreimanded, or punished, at least publicly.
Consider that two years ago, as reported int he Anglican Journal, our then Primate challenged +++ Rowen and the CofE to justify their lack of action in the cases of these several dioceses, or to stop talking about places where they really aren't happening (Canada). The response? Not a word out of Rowen, or out of +London -- indeed, not a word out of +Winchester and not a word out of +Rochester. Not a hint of a denial from any of them that the blessings were happening -- regularly and in some places, frequently. And not a word of justification for lack of action, either.
If, in the CofE, ignoring it means it never happened -- whcih certainly seems to be the case, based on the last few years -- then presuable +London will be finding away to ignore this one too.
But it would be nice if the good people of the CofE would not themsleves pretend that it isn't happening at all.
John
[ 17. June 2008, 01:51: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Less emotional foaming at the mouth by the likes of you might help the cause you support.
If you didn't care for my reaction to your argument you'll find some others in the thread that took similar exception to it, in fuller forms of expression.
The tone of your response, however, does not encourage me to entertain further discussion.
Godspeed. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Unfortunately, unlike Rabelais, you have neither sense nor wit.
Sad you can't bludgeon the opposition out of existence? Not surprising given your lack of intellectual credibility and dour lack of wit or charity.
The Church is much broader than any one point of view.
Pity you don't see that. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
I don't think personal attacks are appropriate here.
To return to the subject of the debate, I do think that people will hold different positions, with integrity, on the subject of the recent blessing. I'm grateful to mousethief for encouraging me to reflect further on this.
To be clearer about my own position, the Bishops' pastoral statement allows people to campaign for change, whilst sticking to the rules, and that's what I felt called to do in this debate.
Why do I care? Because as a prospective ordinand, I will have to make certain promises and I cannot do so disingenuously. These promises mean that I will have to be single and chaste for the rest of my life. Actually, I think I can cope with that! But I know some other people who find it much more difficult, and they would see the recent blessing as a beacon of hope. As with other reforms in the church, ISTM that changes in the such rules may well follow 'critical mass' changes in practice, and that might be the result of this blessing and other forms of dedication that are taking place every week.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque. To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars. As churches lose their traditional broad support in the community they will end up making these sort of bizarre statements and the decline will continue.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It is not just the blessing of a civil partnership by a vicar that is controversial. I agree there are probably a few every month across the Church of England.
It is unusual that the couple were both Anglican priests, and one of them was not merely licensed by our Bishop, but an incumbent in one of his churches, chaplain to one of our great hospitals and priest vicar at one of our royal churches. That is what makes this newsworthy.
Exactly!
And you could also add the following facts:
- that it happened a few weeks before the Lambeth Conference where homosexuality is going to be high on the agenda.
- that the ceremony consciously made considerable use of the BCP wedding service.
- that the ceremony seems to have been far grander than most such blessings normally are.
Sorry, but the "this happens all the time" argument just doesn't wash. Blessings of civil partnerships may be happening frequently. But I doubt that there has been anything quite like this in the UK before - which makes the timing of it all the more suspect.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque. To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars. As churches lose their traditional broad support in the community they will end up making these sort of bizarre statements and the decline will continue.
Aumbry
I think it is undoubtedly true that some traditionalists will be repelled by the ceremony. But a different (and in my view, larger) section of the population - including many ordinary families - think that the church is bigoted, obsessed with sex, unrealistic and out of date. This latter group might, conceivably, be encouraged rather than discouraged by recent events.
Sadly, the main reasons why people seem to stay away from church is because they do not really believe in God (in any committed, life-affecting sense) or increasingly, because they know nothing about Jesus.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So overall, I can't really see the blessing having a significant impact on church attendance, although it might have lots of internal effects on what the church struggles to become.
[x-posted with Oscar]
[ 17. June 2008, 09:40: Message edited by: Hermeneut ]
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque. To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars. As churches lose their traditional broad support in the community they will end up making these sort of bizarre statements and the decline will continue.
Aumbry
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
Although what people outwith the CofE think about us should only have secondary authority in determining policy, if that, the idea that the Church should become even more conservative in order to broaden her appeal is simply bonkers. For most poeple in this country, homophobia has gone the way of geocentrism and the acceptance of gay couples is only going to become greater with time.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Hermeneut wrote:- quote:
I think it is undoubtedly true that some traditionalists will be repelled by the ceremony. But a different (and in my view, larger) section of the population - including many ordinary families - think that the church is bigoted, obsessed with sex, unrealistic and out of date. This latter group might, conceivably, be encouraged rather than discouraged by recent events.
Sadly, the main reasons why people seem to stay away from church is because they do not really believe in God (in any committed, life-affecting sense) or increasingly, because they know nothing about Jesus.
(Just realized I posted earlier on this thread - must re-check over it. But this is a direct response to this comment alone)
Hermeneut - I think that is largely correct. But if anything it understates the problem. As it happens (and for reasons I can't really go into here) I did ask a number of people about church attendance a few weeks ago - before this incident became public.
They did indeed comment on the (apparent) obsession with sex, unrealistic, out-of-date etc. However it was pretty clear that such comments were being directed at both sides of this argument, not just one. To many, I suspect this sort of incident, and the reactions to it, sound like the church locating itself firmly in the 1970's.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ivetoldyouonce
Apprentice
# 13749
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by antSJD:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
With the OP in mind, I can only see an awful backlash from this. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, the media will grab it with both hands and it is hardly doing anything for unity and cohesion in the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 2 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ivetoldyouonce
Apprentice
# 13749
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by glockenspiel:
[QB] " ... or is most likely having ..."
What kind of outfit are we?
Posts: 2 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Aumbry said: To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars
I've never been to a 'transvestite piano bar' (I imagine it's a place where you might come across a 12 inch pianist?) but it sounds fascinating- and probably more interesting and appealing than a church that is succeeding in making itself less and less relevant by it's muddle over 'gays'.
Some people are gay. Some are Christian. Some are both. So get over it!
[ 17. June 2008, 10:43: Message edited by: Cardinal Pole Vault ]
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
It might explain why families are staying away from this particular type of anglocatholic church and the growth is with the conservative evangelicals, catholics and Islam. I believe that in America where the process is more advanced the Episcopalian Church is in very serious decline.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Is there a separate issue about whether or not gay priests actively seek out sector ministries and chaplaincies rather than parish positions because their employer would be more sensitive to their sexuality than a diocese?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
But no. The only recent survey I could find with a quick Google came from the Daily Record and included this nugget:
quote:
Scotland was more tolerant when it came to attitudes to gay people. Only 30 per cent of those polled said gay relationships were "always" or "mostly" wrong, compared to 41 per cent in 2003.
And 54 per cent believed gay couples should have the right to marry, compared with 21 per cent who insisted they should not. In 2003, 29 per cent of those polled were against gay marriage.
Note that this is in Scotland - England would certainly be more tolerant on account of having more centres of gay community. So a large and growing majority of people think that gay relationships are mostly or always okay, and a small but growing majority think they should be able to marry.
I'm sure you would love to think I was out of touch, but no, it would seem not.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
Transvestite piano bars are very popular with straight people - probably more so than some churches (although in some situations there may be some confusion between the two....)
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
I am afraid that when canvassed people will always give the impression of being more liberal than they are in reality. I expect if surveyed 95% of Scots would deplore the misuse of alcohol too.
In any case I did not say that these relationships should not be blessed but that this sort of a wedding-simulacrum is a grotesque.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
Surely that means that the other 5% were too pi**ed to answer the question?
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
